I deny his suspension was illegal or that the number reached the tens of thousands the author claimed. People who have studied the matter have found that on a per-capita basis you were far more likely to have been locked up without trial in a Jeff Davis confederacy than an Abe Lincoln United States.
That's a fact. Lincoln immediately raised a huge army specifically to invade the South, which had declared independence on exactly the same legal basis as that used by the 13 colonies less than a century before.
If memory serves, the United Kingdom then raised a large army to oppose the 13 colonies and their rebellion. So if you want to equate the two then fine, both rebelled but only one actually won their rebellion.
And I'll point out that the confederacy called for raising an army of 100,000 the day Lincoln was inaugurated and over a month before Lincoln called for troops. What was their army for? Parades?
You describe every pro-Confederate argument as a "myth," probably because a bunch of liberal professors filled you with all the gushing Lincoln mythology and Yankee propaganda, just the way they are filling empty heads with worship of 0bama today.
And here we see that grand old Southron whine in all it's full-blown glory - anyone who doesn't believe in the confederate cause has just got to be a liberal. You all are nothing if not predictable.
The Civil War was fought almost entirely on Southern soil, and conditions there soon became desperate.
Having chosen war, only the confederacy was in a position to keep it from being fought on their own territory. They didn't do a very good job of it.
When an army invades a rural agricultural society and burns buildings and crops, kills or steals livestock, it is tantamount to killing civilians by starvation and exposure.
Fair enough. We'll ignore the rebel stripping of Pennsylvania during their campaign there and instead ask how many civilians died of starvation or exposure as a result of Sherman's or Sheridan's armies? Thousands? Tens of thousands? If it's as many as you would have us believe then it has to be documented somewhere. Can you enlighten us?
In contrast, when Lee invaded PA, his men were commanded to respect civilians, and officers were ordered to pay civilians for supplies they requisitioned.
So if Sherman had paid for the food he foraged with toilet paper, about the same value as confederate currency, then that would be all right? In fact, if you would read up on the campaigns in the North, Lee's men looted and foraged and "requisitioned" to much the same extent that Sherman's men did. And then there was that whole abduction of free blacks in Pennsylvania and Maryland and sending them down south to slavery thing that you all try to ignore. But I'm sure they were very polite on the trip back to slavery.
I repeat: Lincoln did irreparable damage to the Constitutional, Federal system.
And I repeat: Nonsense.
Not until FDR was his trashing of States' rights surpassed.
In what way did Lincoln trash state's rights. Be specific now.
If Alexander does exaggerate a little...
A little????? Baby Lord Jesus, boy, that's like saying the Obama administration upped spending a little. Lies are lies. Deliberate misquotes are deliberate misquotes. Whether you do it a little or a lot it still makes a mockery of your arguement.
If you go on reading slanted liberal academic propaganda about the Civil War and other things, you are well on your way to becoming a fan of FDR ("he had to be fascist to save capitalism") and 0bama.
Nothing is more amusing than a confederate kool-ade guzzler in high dudgeon.
Everyone on both sides knew the election of Lincoln meant secession and war against the South. The majority of Northerners elected him anyway. The North invaded the South from the very beginning. The North had an official policy at the highest level to commit war crimes against Southern civilians. That was never the policy of Jeff Davis, and certainly against the direct orders of R.E. Lee. No general can control every soldier, but I can tell you this: I have been all over southern PA where the Army of N. VA invaded, and there are thousands of fine old barns and houses standing unscathed, which would not be the case if Lee's army had a policy of trashing civilians and their property, as did Sherman's and Sheridan's. The ANV paid civilians with what they had, Confederate currency. That's what their own soldiers were paid with, when they were paid at all. I don't know where you get this crap about the Confederate Army kidnapping free blacks from PA. Lee's army limped back to the Potomac, barely able to take away its own thousands of wounded; there was no time to capture and guard blacks, even if they had wanted to. Those are facts, but you prefer the propaganda of your liberal historians, apparently. And yes, the overwhelming majority of historians, esp. in academia, are liberals. Maybe you believe in global warming also, because most self-styled experts" in academia tell you that's true too.
You finally acknowledge that the South acted on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, then sneer that the South lost and the colonial rebels won. Obviously you don't care about principles, but think that might makes right, that Lincoln was entitled to make himself a military dictator, by the same principle 0bama uses to trash his Republican opponents and the American taxpayer--because the arrogant bastard WON (by hook or by crook) and raised a huge army to crush his opponents, Northern and Southern. You justify Lincoln's tyranny the same way 0bama justifies his--he "had to" to fix a "national crisis" --which in both cases was created by the tyrant's own party. 0bama wants to stamp out the last vestiges of conservative influence, like talk radio, just as Lincoln silenced his opponents, and as Republicans disenfranchised Confederates for many years and ruled the South with an army of occupation and corrupt civilian carpetbaggers.